cannabisnews.com: As We See It: Legalizing Marijuana
function share_this(num) {
tit=encodeURIComponent('As We See It: Legalizing Marijuana');
url=encodeURIComponent('http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/25/thread25522.shtml');
site = new Array(5);
site[0]='http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u='+url+'&title='+tit;
site[1]='http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit.php?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
site[2]='http://digg.com/submit?topic=political_opinion&media=video&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
site[3]='http://reddit.com/submit?url='+url+'&title='+tit;
site[4]='http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&noui&jump=close&url='+url+'&title='+tit;
window.open(site[num],'sharer','toolbar=0,status=0,width=620,height=500');
return false;
}
As We See It: Legalizing Marijuana
Posted by CN Staff on March 25, 2010 at 11:57:17 PT
Editorial
Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel
Santa Cruz, CA -- Voters in November will get the chance to legalize marijuana in California, and we expect one of the arguments in opposition will be what's happening in the quasi-legal arena of medical pot.Backers announced Wednesday they had submitted the signatures of nearly 700,000 registered voters, far more than the 433,971 valid signatures needed to qualify the measure for the ballot.
The initiative calls for allowing Californians 21 and older to grow and possess up to an ounce of marijuana under state law. While the measure would not change federal law, which says marijuana is illegal, it would give authority to local governments, which could tax and regulate sales -- or decide not to participate. Will voters go for it? A statewide poll last year found that 56 percent of voters backed legalization and taxation of marijuana. Backers will certainly tout the amount of money taxing pot could raise, money desperately needed in our troubled economy. But, it's worth asking, since half the money the state spends goes to public education, does it also make sense to give schools money from pot taxes while spurring even more students to get high?What? This measure would only allow adult use, you say.Does anyone believe that legalization wouldn't result in even more kids smoking pot? Or, put another way, despite the legitimate medical reasons for allowing marijuana sales and use for pain relief and other doctor-approved reasons, it's hardly a surprise the system is gamed by people seeking high-grade marijuana for recreational use.Cities have had to face complaints and abuses arising from unregulated proliferation of medical marijuana "cooperatives" that in some cases have brought law enforcement problems.Santa Cruz has proved to be at the forefront of responsibility here, limiting the number of medical marijuana dispensaries to two and restricting the areas where the shops can be located. Clearly, however, the demand is there for even more outlets, which is why Santa Cruz City Councilwoman Lynn Robinson put out a plea to other cities to allow dispensaries to take the pressure off Santa Cruz to supply pot.Legalizing pot might also be viewed as anti-business. In Humboldt County, where marijuana long ago supplanted timber and fishing as the top local export, some growers say medical pot dispensaries have been a drag on their profits -- although some are saying they could set up "pot tasting" tours, much like Napa Valley with wine. Legalization, however, would also probably deal a blow to Mexican drug cartels, which depend on this country's insatiable appetite for illegal narcotics. Another argument also is persuasive -- that American culture is already saturated with drug use, starting with alcohol abuse. Adding yet another means of mind-altering escape to people's opt-out choices is hardly in the public health interest.Unfortunately, for many Californians that argument was long ago decided, which is why in many communities such as Santa Cruz, marijuana use is mostly ignored. Laws that people disregard, willfully and willingly, end up fostering a climate of situational ethics. Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel (CA)Published: March 25, 2010Copyright: 2010 Santa Cruz SentinelContact: editorial santa-cruz.comURL: http://drugsense.org/url/80jaiZziWebsite: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/URL: http://santacruzsentinel.com/ci_14754127CannabisNews -- Cannabis Archiveshttp://cannabisnews.com/news/list/cannabis.shtml
Home Comment Email Register Recent Comments Help
Comment #9 posted by NikoKun on March 26, 2010 at 00:33:41 PT
On the bit about kids getting it more...
To people against legalization, who use the excuse "more kids will use it"... I say that legalization is the BEST way to reduce youth usage of it. And I could point to countries that have decriminalized it... But instead I offer this logic:
Right now, it's illegal, and drug dealers don't check IDs, so kids have a rather easy time getting it. Obviously legalizing it doesn't stop people from trying to sell it to kids, but it DOES allow us an easier time tracking legitimate sales, and legitimate-licensed sellers would be required to check IDs, and lose said license if they're traced back too from underage kids getting it.On top of that, having it legal means less illegal dealers. After all, who's gonna buy it from a dealer, when they can get it legitimately from a store? The legal sales offer competition, that black market prices simply can't compete with. This means far less sources selling it to kids. It puts dealers out of business. Logically, legal weed should decrease youth access, not immediately, but certainly once it's set in.I honestly don't see how anyone can logically come to the conclusions this article writer does, beyond ignorance.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #8 posted by Totalrod2 on March 25, 2010 at 18:06:41 PT:
The article
Seems like someone's a little worried it may actually be legalized. Well tough tooty.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #7 posted by Vincent on March 25, 2010 at 13:47:42 PT:
The Sentinel
Marijuana legalization? The way they "see it"? Very brainwashed, I would say.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #6 posted by Cheebs1 on March 25, 2010 at 13:03:21 PT:
It's Continuing
But, it's worth asking, since half the money the state spends goes to public education, does it also make sense to give schools money from pot taxes while spurring even more students to get high?"" What? This measure would only allow adult use, you say." "Does anyone believe that legalization wouldn't result in even more kids smoking pot? Or, put another way, despite the legitimate medical reasons for allowing marijuana sales and use for pain relief and other doctor-approved reasons, it's hardly a surprise the system is gamed by people seeking high-grade marijuana for recreational use."Look at the doublespeak inherent in just this section of atrocious propaganda. The author asks the question about children using pot then goes on a tangent complaining about sick people and people that are faking illnesses to get pot.Since the author asked the question maybe he should let someone with an education answer it. Of course I think it will be harder for children to obtain cannabis. Noone asks for an ID card to prove your age in an illegal system. The truth of the matter is that because of prohibition it is, in fact, much easier for underage people to procure the prohibited substance. This is not an opinion but a fact easily verifiable by looking at modern day statistics. Through regulating and taxing tobacco there has a been a dramatic decrease in the percentage of youth that smoke cigarettes. These dramatic results have been the direct and proximate result of education and not prohibition.Why is that these prohibitionists think that by giving approval for an adult to do something we are giving tacit approval for the youth to follow. It does not make sense when in the legislation it clearly says for those over 21. Any time a prohib trots out the children bullet point they should be ashamed because the public is better educated than they were in 1937. We know that when we say something is for adults it is not meant for children but when the children reach the age of majority they can decide for themselves because, at that point, they will be adults and not children.How many teachers have been fired and laid off in California? The taxes that will become available might have been able to save some of the teachers. I say to the prohibs. " What about the children. Don't you love your children enough to realize the benefit of these taxes in keeping your children educated by saving teachers jobs and safe by having police freed up to pursue violent crime?"
Those are the questions that parents should be asked. Peace, Love, and Pot
Cheebs
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #5 posted by FoM on March 25, 2010 at 12:53:59 PT
Dr Ganj
I wanted to mention that I remember you telling us about that time that trouble was coming your way. That was a long time ago and we're still here and closer then ever. It's a good feeling.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #4 posted by Dr Ganj on March 25, 2010 at 12:39:33 PT:
After The Vote
It will become state law in January, of 2011.
http://www.taxcannabis.org/index.php/pages/about
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #3 posted by James Crosby on March 25, 2010 at 12:33:32 PT:
Hello
I believe it would be like the Oregon Cannabis Tax Act, and if it passes in November, than it would go into effect January 1st of 2011.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #2 posted by FoM on March 25, 2010 at 12:32:25 PT
ezrydn
Very good question.
[ Post Comment ]
Comment #1 posted by ezrydn on March 25, 2010 at 12:25:17 PT
Fact Left Out
When the Cannabis bill passes the November election in California, when does it go into effect? No one's mentioned that yet.
[ Post Comment ]
Post Comment